4 principles by Paul Rand that may surprise you

Saul Bass, Milton Glaser and Paul Rand are something like the holy trinity of 20th century logo design. Between them, they branded a staggering number of the world’s biggest companies, from AT&T to IBM.

Rand, the eldest of the three, was arguably the most influential. His principles continue to inspire today. Some of them may surprise you.

Like Bass and Glaser, Rand was born to Jewish immigrants in New York City between the World Wars. He was artistically inclined and studied design at three different institutions, though he never cared much for them and always considered himself self-taught.

Soon he was earning praise for his magazine covers which he designed for free. Then, onward to logo.

A formative moment arrived when Rand met one of his idols, Hungarian Bauhaus artist László Moholy-Nagy. At their meeting, Moholy-Nagy asked if Rand read art criticism. When Rand said “no,” Moholy-Nagy reportedly replied “Pity.” From that point onward, Rand began reading art criticism and philosophy as much as he could.

After catching up on his art theory, Rand began to philosophize about his own work — what logos are, what they are not, what they are capable of being. We’ve summed up some of his biggest ideas into four major principles.

1. “A logo derives meaning from the quality of the thing it symbolizes, not the other way around.”

Designers sometimes talk about logos as if they were responsible for conveying meaning by themselves and, hence, the success or failure of a logo is a factor of the design.

Rand never assigned such importance or responsibility to a logo:

“It is only by association with a product, a service, a business, or a corporation that a logo takes on any real meaning. If a company is second rate, the logo will eventually be perceived as second rate. It is foolhardy to believe that a logo will do its job immediately, before an audience has been properly conditioned.”

This doesn’t mean that logos are insignificant — it means logos are free. They bear the burden only of marking, not meaning. This brings us to the second principle.

2. “The only mandate in logo design is that they be distinctive, memorable and clear.”

Logo for Westinghouse, 1960

In other words, logos can look like whatever they want. They don’t have to directly depict anything about the company they represent. In fact, sometimes it’s better when they don’t!

As Rand puts it:

“Surprising to many, the subject matter of a logo is of relatively little importance, and even appropriateness of content does not always play a significant role.

“This does not imply that appropriateness is undesirable. It merely indicates that a one-to-one relationship between a symbol and what it symbolized is very often impossible to achieve and, under certain conditions, objectionable. Ultimately, the only mandate in the design of logos, it seems, is that they be distinctive, memorable, and clear.”

3. Presentation is key

Logo for ABC 1962

Rand placed great importance on the act of presenting a design to a client. For each design, a designer must tell a unique story that is tailored to the client.

“How to present a new idea is, perhaps, one of the designer’s most difficult tasks. Everything a designer does involves presentation of some kind–not only how to explain (present) a particular design to an interested listener (client, reader, spectator), but how the design may explain itself in the marketplace…”

4. “Simplicity is not the goal. It is the by-product of a good idea and modest expectations.”

If you truly understand what a logo is and is not capable of doing, then your designs will always have the simplicity that we all celebrate.

The following examples illustrate Rand’s success in this regard:

Rebus poster for IBM, 1970

Logo for Yale University Press, 1985

Logo for Steve Jobs’ Next Computers, 1986

Logo re-design for Ford, 1966. It was not used.

Logo for UPS, 1961

Logo for Borzoi Books, 1945

Logo for Enron, 1996

Of the “holy trinity of logo design” (Rand, Bass, Glaser), who is your favorite?

Any comments?

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Mary Scott

Sep 4 2012

I had the privilege of meeting all three while I was teaching at Art Center. Milton was quite soft spoken and gracious, Saul was clever and a little bombastic and Paul was a wonderful curmudgeon—I like him the the best. The three of them are giants in our field, they have and continue to touch our lives. I cried when they redesigned UPS. Milton is still at work while Paul and Saul are up at the big critiques.

YOU GOT TO MEET THEM!!!! WOW!!! I just started design school in 2013 (at the of 40) and I just love it. I am in awe at all of the designers.

Paul Lukes

Sep 4 2012

Out of the three, I think Rand is the least skilled designer. Sorry to say it, but I’m not a fan of most of his work (That Ford design, really?). I respect his knowledge and skill in selling his ideas. I think that’s where his career holds the most lessons for younger designers. Saul Bass is easily my favorite of the three. His work is timeless and remarkable. Milton is also great, but Saul is one of my favorite designers ever, not just out of these three gents.